4 ms·
The average person is the average which includes some of the richest people on the planet, so I’m guessing you were thinking median? While the sentence is like
by intended 2y ago
The average person is the average which includes some of the richest people on the planet, so I’m guessing you were thinking median?
While the sentence is likely true, the sister statement to it would cover historical relativism.
Society is generally expected to evolve and improve - this being the whole point of it.
So being absolutely better than the past is not as relevant to the conversation as how poor people are with comparison to their peers in their own country.
- fastball 2y agoNo, a gap is still not an issue. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a world where everyone has everything they need and one person has a net worth of a gazillion dollars.
- intended 2y agoSure, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that hypothetical world.
- fastball 2y agoRight, so you agree. The problem is the floor, not the gap. People like to point at a gap (in attainment or wealth or whatever) and pretend that this is all they really need to do, because the gap itself is evil. But that is nonsense, as demonstrated by my hypothetical. The gap itself is nothing and the context is everything. So you can't just point out gaps. You need to articulate 1. what the people at the bottom are lacking 2. how closing the gap will ensure that the people at the bottom are better off afterwards (rather than just cutting down the people at the top).